Why the study?
Does renal denervation reduce 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with true-resistant versus pseudo-resistant hypertension?
Does renal denervation reduce 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in patients with true-resistant versus pseudo-resistant hypertension?
Renal denervation significantly reduces blood pressure in true-resistant hypertension but is largely ineffective in pseudo-resistant hypertension, highlighting the critical role of 24-hour ABPM for patient selection.
ABPM may help select true-resistant patients likely to respond to renal denervation; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Renal denervation (RDN) is a promising treatment option in addition to medical antihypertensive treatment in patients suffering from resistant hypertension. Despite the growing interest in RDN, the negative result of the Symplicity HTN-3 trial led to a debate on the efficacy of RDN. METHODS: We systematically investigated the effects of RDN, evaluated by 24-hr ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM), in a consecutive series of patients with resistant hypertension, which was defined by a mean office systolic blood pressure (SBP) >160 mm Hg (>150 mm Hg in patients with diabetes). Patients with a mean 24-hr SBP of less than 130 mm Hg at baseline were classified as pseudo-resistant, while all other patients were classified as true-resistant. After six months, we analyzed the response rates in true-resistant and in pseudo-resistant patients, respectively, by the means of 24-hr ABPM. Thereby, patients with a reduction of more than 5 mm Hg in 24-hr SBP were classified as responders. RESULTS: RDN was performed in 106 patients. By 24-hr ABPM, 20 patients (18.9%) were classified as pseudo-resistant patients. In this cohort, we only found two responders (response rate 10%) six months after RDN. By contrast, in true-resistant patients, the response rate was almost 60% and the mean BP reduction was -18.6/-9 mm Hg in 24-hr ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant BP reduction in almost 60% of patients with true-resistant hypertension, but only in 10% in patients with pseudo-resistant hypertension. According to our results, patient selection seems to be crucial for acceptable response rates after RDN.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lambert et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: